The Smoking Ban - 2 years on.

[semi-pro waster]

The amount of revunue raised through tobacco taxation more than covers any extra costs that smokers might generate. In fact i can't think of any additional burden. Smokers are more likely to die of smoking related illnesses but they are treated in the same way as someone getting breast cancer or having a stroke. We all get ill, and we all die, the people that raise the most costs are those which need care for 20 years because they live to 95, smokers are more likely to die younger and have a quick death i.e. lung cancer etc.

If it were purely a cost issue then you might be right but you've also got a finite amount of beds/treatment available so to say that smokers are no additional burden isn't strictly true. They do however pay for the privilege and the excess generated in taxation may well pay for other treatments.

If you had a zero tolerance to alcohol everyone would be over the drink drive limit, a level of alcohol is tolerated in the most part to cover people the morning after.

Are you sure about that? I don't believe stated police policy for the level is that you are to be covered the morning after.

However the body naturally produces some alcohol so an absolute limit of zero is unrealistic - it wouldn't bother me particularly if it were lowered slightly though.

You know, I can only comment on this from the point of view of an ex-smoker, I gave up earlier this year and haven't really seen much benefit yet, but I am sure that I will.

I don't disagree with the smoking ban, however I do think that it has had a negative effect upon many businesses, and that really doesn't help in the grand scheme of things.

As to extending it, fine, go ahead.. and while you are at it.. ban the consumption of alcohol in public, after all, we see enough complaints about binge drinking already.

Lots of places already do ban alcohol in public - I'm not convinced that it has improved them or reduced the incidence of alcohol related problems but I'm open to that possibility.

in fact, bring in prohibition, lets go dry and see how happy it makes people.

I don't drink, it wont bother me, but I am sure there are a lot of the anti-smoking brigade, would be up in arms about how prohibition is taking away their right to drink responsibly.

Maybe you drink responsibly, but many others dont, and to be honest, may aswell tar everyone with the same brush.

It's not quite the same thing, drinking in moderation is not unhealthy and arguably is beneficial for health - I don't believe the same is possible to claim for smoking.

 

[aproctor]

If it were purely a cost issue then you might be right but you've also got a finite amount of beds/treatment available so to say that smokers are no additional burden isn't strictly true.

I smoke, if in several decades i am ill with a smoking related disease they will treat it, i will get better or i will die.

You are a non smoker, in several decades if you are ill you will have one of a million diseases treated, you will get better or die.

Where did this rubbish come about that smokers cost the NHS more (taking away of the argument of extra tobacco taxation)

How is a smoking related illness any more expensive than a non smoking related one?

 

[clv101]

The amount of revunue raised through tobacco taxation more than covers any extra costs that smokers might generate. In fact i can't think of any additional burden. Smokers are more likely to die of smoking related illnesses but they are treated in the same way as someone getting breast cancer or having a stroke. We all get ill, and we all die, the people that raise the most costs are those which need care for 20 years because they live to 95, smokers are more likely to die younger and have a quick death i.e. lung cancer etc.

That's a pretty poor argument!

Economically speaking the tax on smoking may pay for the cost of treating the illness - BUT that's similar to saying you can increase the GDP of the country by breaking windows (they have to be fixed generating demand for glass and labour). It's daft.

If people didn't spend their money on smoking, they would spend it on something else, stimulate the economy, increase the velocity of money, generating tax revenue at every turn. We'd be a wealthy country, with a stronger economy without smoking.

 

[clv101]

I smoke, if in several decades i am ill with a smoking related disease they will treat it, i will get better or i will die.

You are a non smoker, in several decades if you are ill you will have one of a million diseases treated, you will get better or die.

Where did this rubbish come about that smokers cost the NHS more (taking away of the argument of extra tobacco taxation)

How is a smoking related illness any more expensive than a non smoking related one?

Eh? This is getting dafter and dafter - as a smoker you are more likely to require some expensive medical treatment.

 

[sniffy]

Keep it as it is. Anything more is just anal.

 

[aproctor]

That's a pretty poor argument!

Is it? How so?

Economically speaking the tax on smoking may pay for the cost of treating the illness - BUT that's similar to saying you can increase the GDP of the country by breaking windows (they have to be fixed generating demand for glass and labour). It's daft.

No its not, tobacco taxation is extra revenue raised directly linked to consumption, the more tobacco a person consumes the more likely they are to suffer from a smoking related illness.

Your window breaking scenario is a load of tosh

If people didn't spend their money on smoking, they would spend it on something else, stimulate the economy, increase the velocity of money, generating tax revenue at every turn. We'd be a wealthy country, with a stronger economy without smoking.

So if i stop smoking and spend the £6 a day on haribo or DVD's that will boost the economy more than putting £4 per day in HMRCs pockets?

 

[div0]

I smoke, if in several decades i am ill with a smoking related disease they will treat it, i will get better or i will die.

You are a non smoker, in several decades if you are ill you will have one of a million diseases treated, you will get better or die.

Where did this rubbish come about that smokers cost the NHS more (taking away of the argument of extra tobacco taxation)

How is a smoking related illness any more expensive than a non smoking related one?

I suggest you re-read his post

He's saying that it's not just about cost.

But if you can reduce the number of people needing medical care, then you reduce the overall demand on the health service.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Where did this rubbish come about that smokers cost the NHS more (taking away of the argument of extra tobacco taxation)

How is a smoking related illness any more expensive than a non smoking related one?

I don't seem to recall positing either of those arguments so I'm not going to argue for or against them.

I didn't say that smokers cost the NHS more, I said that calling them no extra burden wasn't strictly true - if they didn't have smoking related illnesses then they wouldn't be receiving treatment for them. Resources are finite so if someone is being treated for a smoking related disease then that means some resource has been diverted - it may be possible to work out whether it makes any difference or not overall but I'm not the person to do that.

 

[Begbie]

As a smoker, I don't really mind to be honest. I hardly ever smoke inside anyway, infact can't remeber the last time I did smoke inside!

 

[clv101]

So if i stop smoking and spend the £6 a day on haribo or DVD's that will boost the economy more than putting £4 per day in HMRCs pockets?

Yes of course! Tax is a drag on the economy.

 

[aproctor]

Eh? This is getting dafter and dafter - as a smoker you are more likely to require some expensive medical treatment.

No i'm not, please back this up with evidence.

If i get ill due to smoking it will most likely be cancer or heart disease, both of which you can get without smoking.

Or does smoking cause some super cancer that nobody but you is aware of?

If you are going to make sweeping statements please back them up

 

[wez130]

Why?

i'm an ex smoker, been quit for 4 years now.

1. Most pubs serve food these days and theres nothing worse than trying to eat a meal when there's a cloud of smoke coming from the smoking area.

2. It is no hardship for smokers to go and stand outside and smoke, if i still smoked, i too would not be bothered by this, it's courteous, you choose to spend £5 odd on a a pack of ciggies to kill yourself early, at least non - smokers should be able to choose whether they want to breath in your second hand smoke rather than being forced to.

3. I was away on business the other week and got put up in a holiday inn in Salford Quays, the room they put me in had the air condition extraction fans right outside, which were rather noisy, i complained and all they had left was a smoking room, ok, can't be that bad can it?

WRONG

I walked in that room and was instantly hit with the horrible smell of stale smoke, i almost threw up it was that bad. How come they don't have to follow the smoking ban?

Now don't get me wrong, i don't mind smokers, or being round them when they are smoking, it's not that bad, but i'd rather put myself in that situation rather than have it forced on me.

Therefore, as in my earlier post, the ban should continue.

 

[aproctor]

I don't seem to recall positing either of those arguments so I'm not going to argue for or against them.

I didn't say that smokers cost the NHS more, I said that calling them no extra burden wasn't strictly true - if they didn't have smoking related illnesses then they wouldn't be receiving treatment for them. Resources are finite so if someone is being treated for a smoking related disease then that means some resource has been diverted - it may be possible to work out whether it makes any difference or not overall but I'm not the person to do that.

Fair point, but as most people who have smoking related diseases get them towards the end of their lives i think it's fair to say if they didn't smoke they would have something else, or need something equally expensive further down the line.

 

[clv101]

If i get ill due to smoking it will most likely be cancer or heart disease, both of which you can get without smoking.

...can get but are less likely to. You can find your own evidence, I'm not bothered if you don't believe me.

 

[wez130]

No i'm not, please back this up with evidence.

If i get ill due to smoking it will most likely be cancer or heart disease, both of which you can get without smoking.

Or does smoking cause some super cancer that nobody but you is aware of?

If you are going to make sweeping statements please back them up

smoking is more like an accelerant to cancer / heart desease, or increases you chances of getting it. Therefore you are more likely to get it, therefore, as a population of smokers, you are more likely to need hospital treatment, hence costing more.

 

[aproctor]

How come they don't have to follow the smoking ban?

Hotels are allowed to provide smoking rooms.

I appreciate it's a bit carp if you don't smoke, but i think it would be as bad if my room wasn't up to scratch and they only had non smoking rooms.

 

[wannabedamned]

No i'm not, please back this up with evidence.

If i get ill due to smoking it will most likely be cancer or heart disease, both of which you can get without smoking.

Or does smoking cause some super cancer that nobody but you is aware of?

If you are going to make sweeping statements please back them up

This is getting silly now. Yes you can get both without smoking, but guess what smoking does, It Increases your chance of getting it!

 

[div0]

No i'm not, please back this up with evidence.

If i get ill due to smoking it will most likely be cancer or heart disease, both of which you can get without smoking.

But you are much less likely to get those particular illnesses as a non-smoker.

Are you suggesting that cancer is not expensive to treat?

Your posts are really not making any sense now.

 

[aproctor]

smoking is more like an accelerant to cancer / heart desease, or increases you chances of getting it. Therefore you are more likely to get it, therefore, as a population of smokers, you are more likely to need hospital treatment, hence costing more.

I think you mean more likely to need hospital treatment earlier.

It makes no bones when you get ill, if i cost the NHS £100,00 at 50 years old and died because i smoked or i cost the NHS £100,000 at 90 years old and led a clean life and died i'm no extra burden i just ended my own life 40 years early.

 

[Jokester]

Is there actually any evidence to suggest that smokers cost the taxpayer more than the revenues raised by smoking would cover? I'm not convinced they do.

Ok, they more likely to develop heart disease and lung cancer and a whole host of other diseases and illnesses and die younger. But at the same time, most will lilely become a burden on the system towards the end, just smokers won't have received as much in pension payments.